Erratum uploaded

[Markus Demleitner]

Dear Colleagues,

As I've not heard loud protests, I've gone ahead and uploaded the
erratum, and I got even more convinced we shouldn't use the strong
note process for the errata.  

One point that reinforced my conviction: Notes are versioned, and
Errata shouldn't be, i.e., there should never be a version 2.0 of an
erratum.  If an erratum itself is flawed, it should be withdrawn (but
let's figure out how to do that if and when the problem actually
occurrs).  I'm very sure Errata simply aren't normal documents and
they shouldn't be treated as such [yes, this is a request to put this
on the agenda for the next TCG telecon with a view to revise the
previous decision].

Still, as I said, I've now uploaded a file
DERR-TREErr1-1.0-20141104.pdf (and HTML and so) to the doc repo.
DERR I made up as "Draft Erratum"; there probably would have to be
PERR and ERR in addition if we adopted the strong notes process.

In addition, I had to improvise the status text.  This is
provisionally in ivoatex, and it's

  This is a draft for an erratum to an IVOA recommendation made
  available for public review.  Interested parties are invited to
  evaluate the erratum's validity and impact, but at this stage the
  erratum does not yet change the normative content of the
  recommendation.

I'm completely open to revisions of this text.


We'll also have to work out with the document coordinator how the
erratum should be shown in the document repository.  A few days ago I
sent out a proposal that suggested to put on

  http://ivoa.net/documents/TAPRegExt/index.html

right below the "Available Formats:" something like

Errata: [IdentifierURI] (DRAFT), [WrongTense] (PROPOSED), [BadWords] (REC)

Cheers,

            Markus